get_host_sensors

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint, openWorldHint true. The description adds a '[READ]' tag and explains that an empty list may occur for nested ESXi, which is helpful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is well-structured with a header line, field enumeration, usage tip, edge case, and parameter explanations. It is moderately sized; slightly more concise could be achieved, but it remains coherent and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 2 optional parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema (fields listed in description), the description fully covers the return fields, edge cases, and parameter usage. No gaps remain for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description includes an 'Args' section that explains both parameters: target (optional, uses default) and limit (max rows, None = all). This adds essential semantics not found in schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the action 'Get', the resource 'hardware sensor status', and scope 'for all hosts'. It also distinguishes the tool from its siblings (alarms, events, services, etc.) by focusing on sensor data, which is unique among them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit use case 'spot failing hardware before it causes an outage' and an edge case 'Returns empty list when no host exposes sensor data (e.g. nested ESXi).' However, it does not contrast with alternatives or specify when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.